Back
2009 Supreme(Pat) 968
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.N.Hussain, J.
Awadhesh Prasad Singh @ Abdhesh Prasad Singh Son Of Late Rameshwar Prasad Singh
Versus
Shiv Shankar Prasad Son Of Late Kailash Bihari Prasad
Civil Revision No. 821 of 2009
Decided On : JULY 24, 2009
The executing court cannot go behind the decree sought to be executed, and expeditious compliance with court orders is essential.
Headnote:
Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 - Execution of Decree - Code of Civil Procedure
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the possession of a land parcel following a judgment and decree in a title suit. The petitioner, who was not a party to the suit or the execution case, filed an application claiming ownership of a portion of the land based on a registered deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application filed by the petitioner was frivolous and filed to frustrate the decree-holder and delay the execution of the decree. The court also noted the petitioner's history of misuse of court orders and illegal activities.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the petitioner's claim under Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and whether the executing court could go behind the decree sought to be executed.
Ratio Decidendi: The executing court cannot go behind the decree sought to be executed, especially when the decree was passed after full consideration of all the materials on record. The court also emphasized the need for expeditious compliance with court orders.
Final Decision: The civil revision was dismissed, and the executing court was directed to comply with the order passed in M.J.C. No. 3516 of 2008 expeditiously.
S.N.Hussain, J.
1. This civil revision has been filed by the applicant-petitioner challenging order dated 6.5.2009 by which the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division- 1st, Samastipur rejected the petition filed by the applicant-petitioner under Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bearing Misc. Case No. 1 of 2009.
2. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 3 of 2005, which was filed by opposite party no. 2 against opposite party no. 1 for declaration that interference of opposite party no. 1 with the possession of opposite party no. 2 over the suit land was illegal and without jurisdiction claiming relief of permanent injunction as well as other ancillary reliefs.
3. In the aforesaid suit opposite party no. 1, who was defendant filed a counter claim that he had purchased four dhoors of R.S. Plot No. 284 by a registered deed dated 1.12.1993 and since then was in exclusive possession of the said purchased land as absolute owner thereof which was sought to be decreed.
4. The aforesaid suit was decided by judgment and decree dated 15.9.2007 by which the learned Civil Judge-I, Junior Division, Samastipur dismissed the suit of the plaintiff (opposite party no. 2) but allowed the counter claim of the defendant (opposite party no. 1) directing plaintiff (opposite party no. 2) to deliver possession of the land claimed by the defendant (opposite party no. 1).
5. For execution of the aforesaid judgment and decree defendant-opposite party no. 1 filed Execution Case No. 9 of 2007 claiming delivery of possession of four dhoors of plot no. 284 from plaintiff-opposite party no. 2 and much thereafter on 6.3.2009 the petitioner, who was not a party either to the suit or to the execution case, filed an application in the said execution case under the provision of Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that he had purchased five dhoors of the southern portion of plot no. 284 by registered deed dated 25.2.2005 with which the plaintiff or the defendant had no manner of concern. The decree-holder, namely defendant-opposite party no. 1 contested the petition stating that the aforesaid sale deed was a forged and fabricated document as the southern portion of plot no. 284 had been purchased by him much earlier by registered deed dated 1.12.1993 which had been affirmed by the trial court.
6. The learned court below by its impugned order dated 6.5.2009 found that the application filed by the petitioner had no force either in law or on fact and it was filed only to frustrate the decree-holder in getting the fruit of his decree and to delay the execution of the said decree and hence the said application was dismissed by a detailed and reasoned order.
7. The said order of the learned court below has been challenged by the intervener petitioner claiming that admittedly plot nos. 282, 283 and 284 measured 9 dhoors each, out of which the sale deed of defendant (opposite party no. 1) is only with respect to 18 dhoors and hence from the boundary given in the sale deed it is quite apparent that he had purchased 18 dhoors from the north and hence the southern 9 dhoors of land were not the subject matter of the said sale deed and out of that petitioner had purchased 5 dhoors from the extreme southern end of plot no. 284 and accordingly defendant (opposite party no. 1) could have no manner of claim over the said portion of plot no. 284, which would be apparent from the sale deeds of the petitioner and opposite party no. 1 as well as the admitted sketch map of the three plots.
8. On the other hand, the claim of defendant (opposite party no. 1) was that vide sale deed dated 1.12.1993 he had purchased the entire plot no. 284 as well as portions of plot nos. 282 and 283 totaling 18 dhoors. It is also stated that the sale deed dated 1.12.1993 was executed by Bibhuti Bhushan Singh and since the other co-sharer, namely, Prabhat Kumar Singh had gone out, he subsequently execu
